Talking Trash: People's Attitudes, Expectations and Perceptions about Recycling in Oslo, Norway

(1)

Talking Trash

People’s Attitudes, Expectations and Perceptions About Recycling in Oslo,

Norway

Mariandre Dominique Navas Estrada

Master thesis in Development, Environment and Cultural Change

UNIVERSITY OF OSLO

May 2019

(2)

II

Talking Trash: People’s Attitudes, Expectations and Perceptions About Recycling in Oslo, Norway

http://www.duo.uio.no/

Print: Reprosentralen, University of Oslo

(3)

III

Abstract

Waste is an environmental challenge that cannot be easily “swept under the rug”

anymore and neglected. Billions of tons of household waste are produced globally each year. Until waste is handled properly, valuable resources will be lost, and unfavorable consequences will continue to accrue. Globally, targets and goals (SDGs) for reducing waste and recycling have been formulated, and national/local waste management authorities are trying to engage more people at household level in a collective effort to increase recycling rates.

This thesis argues that in order to change people’s behaviour and increase recycling rates, people’s own voices must first be heard. The beliefs people hold about waste and the waste system may provide valuable feedback information to waste authorities. The study comprises twenty-five semi-structured face-to-face interviews that were carried out with residents of Oslo, Norway. The objective was to understand their attitudes, expectations and perceptions regarding recycling. These three terms were analysed from the perspective of the Theory of Planned Behaviour and were linked to the three concepts Attitude towards the behaviour, Subjective norm, and Perceived behaviour control, respectively.

This qualitative research yielded the following main results: First, two opposing postures were observed among the interviewees. The majority stated they do recycle and held positive beliefs towards the activity. A concern for the environment was discerned, especially for the detrimental impact of plastic. In contrast, one single informant stated he did not recycle at all and held negative beliefs. Secondly, five social norms/expectations were identified, including the duty to recycle imposed by the available infrastructure that the municipality of Oslo provides. Thirdly, although the recycling system is perceived as “easy” to deal with by the majority, the study also found poignant gaps within the system that impedes interviewees from recycling more effectively, such as lack of information as to where to sort specific items and how recycling efforts impact the planet.

The thesis touches on how the findings may hold important messages for waste management authorities.

(4)

IV

Acknowledgements

This was definitely not a one-man show. In fact, this research is the product of many people combined. First, I would like to thank the kindness and patience of my supervisor, Tanja Winther. Her thorough and timely feedback was crucial for this endeavour. I’m also very grateful for the opportunity the University of Oslo gave me to finish this thesis at my own pace given my medical condition. Not all universities are that empathic. In that note, I want to thank Anne-Line Sandåker and Gudrun Eikemo’s caring nature. SUM is lucky to have these three ladies.

A big thank you must also go out to all the people that believed in me; those who encouraged me to continue on the days I was sure I wouldn’t finish; those who cheered at the finish line;

those who offered words of reassurance. Family, friends, there’s no need for a list of names.

They know who they are.

Lastly, I must thank all my interviewees for sharing their time and thoughts for this research.

This research, after all, is merely a channel for their voices to be heard.

(5)

V

Figures and Tables

Figure 1: Map of Oslo Region (Source: Statistics Norway) ... 9

Figure 2: Household Waste in Norway by Treatment in 2013 (Source: Aftenposten) ... 10

Table 1: Household Waste in Oslo by Treatment (Source: Statistics Norway, own translation)... 11

Figure 3: Waste and Economic Growth, Measured in GDP (Source: Statistics Norway)... 12

Figure 4: Waste Priorities Hierarchy (Source: Norwegian Environment Agency) .. 13

Figure 5: Waste Exports from Norway to Different Countries (Source: Norwegian Environment Agency) ... 15

Figure 6: Recycling Station in Oslo (Source: Aftenposten) ... 16

Figure 8: Old Glomma Industry Truck (Source: Glommapapp) ... 20

Figure 9: Gender Distribution (Own source) ... 37

Figure 10: Age graph (Own source) ... 38

Figure 11: Nationalities (Own source) ... 39

Figure 13: Main Concepts in TPB (Source: Taleem) ... 46

Figure 15: Overview of Interviewees’ Main Demotivators to Recycle (Own source) ... 60

Figure 16: Interviewees’ Recycling Engagement (Own source) ... 66

Figure 17: TPB Framework Adapted to Visualize Findings, Interviewees that Recycle (Own Source) ... 91

Figure 18: TPB Framework Adapted to Visualize Findings, Interviewee that Does Not Recycle (Own Source) ... 92

(8)

VIII

(9)

1

1 Introduction: What A Waste of Waste!

Just like the milkman came in the good old days to deliver the white, shiny liquid and the postman came with the much awaited, fragrant love letters, the garbage man came with his big, rackety truck about once per week to collect each household’s bags. A difference now in 2019, at least in Oslo city, is that the truck has the word Verditransport on it. “Verdi” in Norwegian means “value”. From there, the following questions may surface: Is it garbage that the truck collects? Or is it gold?

What do people think about this? What are their opinions about recycling waste?

Waste is a contranym: a concept that can mean two opposite things. The first meaning, common and widespread, has a negative connotation, referring to an environmental problem, as something unwanted, something people want to happily get rid of. The United Nations Environment Programme defines waste as “materials that are not prime products for which the generator has no further use in terms of his/her own purposes of production, transformation or consumption, and of which he/she wants to dispose” (2002). The second meaning envisions waste as a resource, as a valuable item, as an input for other activities, and as a potential economic and environmental gain. Social enterprise Boomerang Recycling asserts that “Waste is often a valuable resource disposed of incorrectly” (2014). Where one sees a big pile of garbage, another sees gold.

No matter the duality, waste poses a complex challenge for humans today. The Great Waste Crisis, as some scholars like to call it, refers to the 2,01 billion tonnes of municipal waste that are generated each year globally and that are expected to increase by 70%, reaching 3,40 billion tonnes around 2050 (World Bank 2019).

These staggering amounts are not generated evenly across the world. Kaza et al.

(2018) report that, in 2016, the East Asian and Pacific region, which includes China and Australia, generated the most waste, approximately 468 million tonnes; followed by the European region, which produced 392 million tonnes of waste. South Asia produced 334 million tonnes; North America, 289 million tonnes; Latin America and

(10)

2

the Caribbean generated 231 million tonnes. The two regions that produced the least waste are the Sub-Saharan Africa/ Middle East region and North Africa, with 174 and 129 million tonnes, respectively. As Kaza et al. affirm “Waste generation is a natural product of urbanization, economic development, and population growth. As nations and cities become more populated and prosperous, offer more products and services to citizens, and participate in global trade and exchange, they face corresponding amounts of waste to manage through treatment and disposal” (Kaza et al. 2018, 18). Consumption is connected to the products and services that Kaza et al.

mention. The more products available on stands, the easier it is for people to consume them, and therefore, to generate waste.

The impact of the global Waste Crisis is highly detrimental. Methane emitted from decomposing waste in landfills makes up nearly 5% of greenhouse gas emissions, and further pollutants are released into the air when waste is incinerated or burned (Kaza et. al. 2018, 115), affecting people’s health. The frequency of illnesses such as diarrhea and respiratory infections from uncollected waste around neighborhoods has increased (Simmons 2016). Furthermore, waste management is a very expensive and complex public service that absorbs from 20% up to 50% of developing countries’

budgets (Ibid.). Valuable space is compromised or used for all the landfills around the world (Tammemagi 1999, 5). Last but not least, since waste in developing countries is usually dumped in landfills near slums, it disproportionally affects more the poor and the vulnerable, who are most exposed to it (United Nations Environment Programme 2012). The Waste Crisis, then, not only affects the environment, but also, the health, financial, spatial and social spheres.

If the Waste Crisis is managed correctly, however, its current problems can turn into opportunity. Transitioning into circular economies is a smart and attractive move, whereby waste is transformed into resources and a bridge is created between production and consumption activities (Witjes and Lozano 2016, 37). Reducing materials in the production process, reusing already available products, and recycling (The Three R’s), thus, have never been so important as they are now. Research about recycling is important not only because it is a pivotal item on the development and environment agenda, specifically the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but because it may ameliorate the Waste Crisis. Target number 12 of

(11)

3 the SDGs (United Nations 2019) addresses consumption and production patterns (i.e.

reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling and reuse). We have reached a point where ignoring the Waste Crisis is no longer a rational choice.

Recycling might not only be a purposeful way to make use of resources that would otherwise end up in a landfill, but also, a powerful form of action that can ameliorate the waste crisis and help pave the road towards a circular economy and a sustainable future.

1.1 The Case of Norway

Efforts to recycle waste are being made. One third of waste in OECD countries is recovered through recycling and composting (Kaza et al. 2018, 35). Yet, just as waste production rates vary in amount depending on the region, high-income countries recycle at different rates. Norway’s case is particularly interesting. This Nordic country has been called a leading figure in recycling matters, and many times has its unique and effective system of recycling plastic bottles, or “pant”, been praised (Ross 2018). However, taking a closer look, statistics and numbers reveal a different scenario. Norway generated 11.4 million tonnes of waste in 2016, whereby 27% was sent to energy recovery and 38% was sent to material recovery (Statistics Norway 2018). If energy recovery, which refers to incineration, is taken out of the equation, this means that Norway recycles less than half of its waste. When it comes to plastic, Norway recycles 124,000 tonnes out of 244,000 collected tonnes (Ibid.).

This is about 50% out of the total collected amount.

In response, the Government of Norway has set out ambitious goals and targets in the country regarding waste. There are four main environmental targets, out of which target 4.3 points out that waste amounts should be kept lower than economic growth rates (Norwegian Environment Agency 2017). The European Union (EU) has also set out the goal of recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2030 (European Commission 2017). These goals make clear that there is significant room for improvement regarding recycling efforts within the country.

(12)

4

1.2 The Approach and Contribution of This Thesis

The underlying goal of this thesis is to identify how to get people “on board” the collective effort of increasing recycling rates. It suggests that in order to change people’s behaviour and encourage them to recycle more, one must first understand how they currently think about the subject. This will also lead to a better understanding of how the waste management system can improve. Policies and infrastructure for recycling may be in place, yet, if the opinions of the people—the end-users of the process—remain unknown, then there is a risk that such systems become ineffective. Knowledge about how people think and act can be used to identify where the gaps in the system lie, if they deem recycling important or not, how difficult or easy it is for them to do it on a daily basis, etc. This is the type of information that can be fed to waste management authorities in the form of feedback.

Feedback is vital for adjusting and making progress, more generally. In sum, the aim of this study is to provide a picture of people’s beliefs, attitudes and perceptions about recycling at the current point in time in Oslo. The hope is that this knowledge may be useful to the bodies in charge of the waste management system.

The target audience is Oslo Renovasjonsetaten, or Oslo REN, the public body that handles the waste management system in the city, but also, any recycling enthusiast, be it teacher, student or concerned citizen.

The focus of this thesis is at household level in Oslo city. Oslo makes for an interesting case study because it is the third largest waste producer in Norway by county (the first two being Akershus and Hordaland) (Statistics Norway 2018), so the city’s waste volume is almost at the top. In addition, waste from households is the second biggest source of waste in Norway (23%), industrial waste being the biggest (25%) (Bjørnestad et al. 2015, own translation). This means that household waste levels may significantly influence the amount of waste that could be recycled.

Recycling is one of many environmental activities a person can engage in their own home, and thereby have a direct, positive impact on the environment.

(13)

5 Much research has already been done about recycling in Norway (see Literature Review section), yet this paper’s contribution to the literature is the application of a theoretical lens—namely, Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour—to examine the different types of beliefs residents of Oslo have at a given point in time. Applying a psychological theory, normally used in quantitative research, in this qualitative study may potentially bring new insights. Twenty-five interviews were held with interviewees that were contacted using the snowball sampling technique. Although this sampling technique renders the research unable to generalize its findings since it is not a representative sample, this study’s findings may hold important messages for waste management authorities.

1.3 Some Useful Terms

Before presenting the research questions, the reader may benefit from getting acquainted with the following terms that appear throughout the paper. These three terms, altogether, represent people’s system of beliefs, and they are connected to the theoretical framework used for this research: the Theory of Planned Behaviour.

Attitude towards the behaviour (Attitude): A person’s “attitude” refers to the set of beliefs he/she has about a behaviour’s consequences. This term can also be called

“behavioural beliefs”, and it is connected to the concept of “Attitude towards the Behaviour” (Ajzen 1991, 188). For example, a person’s attitude can evaluate smoking as “bad for my health” or as “an occasional pleasure”.

Subjective Norm (Expectations): This thesis defines a person’s “Subjective norm”, or expectations, as the social pressure experienced by the person to perform a specific activity; it is a concept that includes the person’s motivation to comply with this social pressure. Ajzen also calls subjective norms “normative beliefs” (Ajzen 1991, 189). For example: a person’s expectations, or subjective norm, related to smoking is set by relatives, friends and doctors. The doctor may suggest “Smoking can give you lung cancer”, which is the expectation, and the person will decide whether he/she will continue smoking, which is his/her motivation to comply.

(14)

6

Perceived Behaviour Control (Perceptions): Perception, here, refers to a belief about how easy or difficult it is for a person to perform an activity; Ajzen also calls it

“control beliefs” (Ajzen 1991, 183). This term is connected to the concept of

“Perceived behavioural control”. In the smoking example, a person may have the perception that it is cheap and easy to find cigarettes on supermarkets. Another person’s perception would be that it is expensive to buy cigarettes (considering he/she smokes heavily), or that it is difficult to obtain them because he/she is not an adult.

System of beliefs: The combination of the three concepts mentioned above (attitude + expectation + perception) comprises a person’s system of beliefs.

For a more detailed account of these terms, see the Theoretical Framework section.

1.4 Research Questions

In the pursuit of generating more knowledge about recycling in the Oslo area, understanding people’s beliefs about the topic, and helping authorities improve the waste management system, this thesis asks the following questions:

RQ1: Among selected households in Oslo, Norway, what are people’s attitudes, expectations and perceptions about recycling?

Based on the analysis of RQ1, this thesis also seeks to answer more specific questions:

RQ2: Why do—or do not—people recycle?

RQ3: To what extent do people know about who collects their waste and what happens to it after it is collected?

RQ4: According to the interviewees, how might the current waste management system in Oslo improve?

(15)

7

1.5 Inspiration and Motivation

Many months ago, I was watching a documentary about wild salmon on the BBC Earth channel. David Attenborough’s voice elegantly explained how a salmon’s life cycle literally begins and ends in the same place. A salmon hatches out of its egg, which lays in a peaceful river current, and then makes its way out to the deep blue sea. It lives for many years at sea, and then, when it is ready to reproduce, it migrates back to natal streams. Its journey, however, does not go unchallenged. The wild salmon must outsmart the claws of hungry bears upstream, and it is only the lucky ones that make it safely to the riverbeds. There, once the salmon has fertilized the eggs of a female, it dies. As tragic as this sounds, the story does not end here. The nutrients from the salmon’s dead body travel from the water up to the roots of the surrounding forest. The salmon keeps the forest alive, it helps the trees grow to magnificent heights. It is a clean, connected life cycle. There is no waste in nature, there is no residue, all the inputs are utilized. Everything is recycled. We can also see the same phenomenon in water cycles, the photosynthesis cycle, nitrogen cycles, the respiration cycle, etc. “Why can’t we humans be more like nature? Why can’t we mimic it?”, I wondered. This is where the inspiration for my thesis began: in a salmon documentary.

Realizing that we humans act and behave in curious ways, quite unlike the ebb and flow of nature, and considering all the amount of valuable garbage we throw that does not enter new cycles, I saw an opportunity to acquire knowledge about recycling by understanding how people think about it. I am motivated to do research in this field with the hopes of working with in it at a professional level. Recycling, after all, is a subject dear to me that represents a way in which I can be reciprocal with nature; I can give back something back for all the wonders I receive.

1.6 The Structure of This Paper

This research is divided into seven main sections. Chapter 2 is comprised of background information about recycling in Oslo as well as a brief historical account

(16)

8

of waste in Norway. Then, in Chapter 3, a literature review about studies in Norway related to recycling will be presented, followed by the methodology in Chapter 4.

The theoretical chapter on the Theory of Planned Behaviour will be explained in Chapter 5, and the last three sections are the findings, discussion and conclusions.

(17)

9

2 Background Information

This chapter contains facts about the current waste management system in Oslo, Norway as well as a brief historical overview of how the country has dealt with waste—from past to present.

2.1 Waste Management System in Oslo, Norway

How does the waste management system function in Oslo? Which actors are involved? What are the current laws or regulations regarding waste disposal in this area? Which targets and goals do waste management entities have for the future?

How much waste is produced in the city? These are some of the questions this section will be answering.

2.1.1 The Oslo Area

Figure 1 depicts the area of Oslo as the area shaded brown. The city has about 681,000 inhabitants (Statistics Norway 2019).

Figure 1: Map of Oslo Region (Source: Statistics Norway)¹

1 Statistics Norway, 2019. «Oslo Region», Retrieved from:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/shows-the-Oslo-region-2-as-defined-by-Statistics- Norway_fig1_264840207

(18)

10

The amount of waste produced in this area is comparable to other counties. Though we may intuit that an area like Oslo, which has more inhabitants than other cities, produces more waste per capita, it is Akershus county, in fact, that produces the most household waste in Norway. It was reported in the year 2017 that Akershus produced 243,000 tonnes of household waste, followed by Hordaland with 226,000 tonnes, and then by Oslo with 218,000 tonnes (Statistics Norway 2018). This means that, although Oslo is not the biggest waste producer, it is still one of the biggest in Norway, which is a statistic that demands attention.

The next question follows: how much of the waste produced in Oslo is recycled? Out of 218,000 tonnes of household waste produced in Oslo in 2017, about 81,000 tonnes were sent to recycling, which is about 38% (including material recovery, composting and biogas) (Statistics Norway 2018, own translation). This is almost the same share the whole country has for household waste sent to recycling at 39% (Ibid.). Figure 2 shows total amounts of household waste in Norway in 2013 and their respective treatment, showing that most of the waste from households was incinerated (1,295,000 tonnes). Further below, Table 1 shows the amount of total waste produced in Oslo and the type of treatment this waste went through.

Figure 2: Household Waste in Norway by Treatment in 2013 (Source: Aftenposten) (Own translation:

“Forbrenning”: Incineration; “Gjenvinning”: Material recovery; “Kompost”: Compost; “Biogass”:

Biogas; “Deponering”: Landfill; “Annet”: Other. Numbers in thousands of tonnes)²

2 Aftenposten, 2013. «Håndtering av husholdstingavfall i 2013», Retrieved from:

https://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/i/KaVG/8-grafer-som-viser-hva-som-skjer-med-sopla-var

(19)

11

Amount (in tonnes) 2018

0301 Oslo

In total 211 777,9

Recycling of Products 52 567,8

Incineration 125 425,6

Landfill 5 363,8

Biogas production 16 474,5

Compost 11 946,3

Other 0,0

Table 1: Household Waste in Oslo by Treatment (Source: Statistics Norway, own translation)³

It is unclear if these statistics can be considered a positive or negative characteristic of Norwegian society until goals and standards are revised. In other words, it is important to check these numbers against the goals and targets the country has to know if Norway is heading in the right direction.

2.1.2 Recycling Targets and Goals

Compared to developing countries, where there is a lack of infrastructure and limited budgets to handle the waste, it is evident that Norway fares well in recycling rates.

Compared to European countries, however, statistics from 2014 show that Norway lies in position #10, Germany being #1, followed by Austria and Belgium (European Environmental Agency 2017). In fact, Norwegians throw out more waste than the average European: the amount of waste generated by a Norwegian in 2017 was 748 kg per person, while the average European produced 272 kg per person (Norwegian Environment Agency 2019, own translation). The European Commission (2017) has already published legislative proposals to stimulate Europe’s transition towards a circular economy, among them:

• “A common EU target for recycling 65% of municipal waste by 2030;

3 Statistics Norway, 2019. “Avfall frå hushalda”, Retrieved from: https://www.ssb.no/avfkomm

(20)

12

• A common EU target for recycling 75% of packaging waste by 2030;

• A binding landfill target to reduce landfill to maximum of 10% of municipal waste by 2030

• A ban on landfilling of separately collected waste

• Promotion of economic instruments to discourage landfilling

• Simplified and improved definitions and harmonized calculation methods for recycling rates throughout the EU

• Concrete measures to promote re-use and stimulate industrial symbiosis–

turning one industry's by-product into another industry's raw material

• Economic incentives for producers to put greener products on the market and support recovery and recycling schemes (i.e. for packaging, batteries, electric and electronic equipment, vehicles).”

These goals apply to European countries. In addition to these larger European proposals, the Norwegian Environment Agency has set out national goals within four categories related to the environment: biodiversity, cultural heritage, outdoor recreation and pollution. Within the pollution category, target 4.3 specifically addresses waste: “The growth in the quantity of waste generated will be considerably lower than the rate of economic growth, and the resources in waste will be used as fully as possible through recycling and energy recovery” (Norwegian Environment Agency 2017a). Indeed, these targets and goals are quite ambitious, and the message they convey is that there is plenty of room for improvement, especially in amounts of recycling in Norway. The graph below shows total amounts of waste and the country’s economic growth, measured in GDP.

Figure 3: Waste and Economic Growth, Measured in GDP (Source: Statistics Norway)⁴

4 Statistics Norway, 2018. “Trends in waste generation and GDP”, Retrieved from:

https://www.environment.no/waste-gdp

(21)

13 It is evident that waste quantities are above GDP, which means that the target has not yet been met. These goals and targets, more generally, are yet to be met.

2.1.3 Priorities, priorities

The Norwegian Environment Agency (Miljødirektoratet) uses a hierarchical pyramid to show which priorities it has in relation to waste management. On the top, or most important, is waste reduction by consuming fewer products; then, the reuse of materials; afterwards comes recycling, or the use of waste to produce new materials;

then comes energy utilization, which is the burning of waste to produce energy; the lowest in ranking involves sending waste to landfills (Norwegian Environment Agency 2018, own translation). Thus, recycling is the third most important priority in the waste management sector. Landfills are perceived as “the last choice”; yet in Norway, they are still consistently used.

Figure 4: Waste Priorities Hierarchy (Source: Norwegian Environment Agency) (Own translation:

“Avfallsforebygging”: Waste reduction; “Ombruk”: Reuse; “Materialgjenvinning”: Recycling of materials; “Energiutnyttelse”: Energy use; “Sluttbehandling”: Final treatment, which includes landfills.)⁵

5 Norwegian Environment Agency, 2016. “Avfallshierarkiet”, Retrieved from:

http://www.miljokommune.no/Temaoversikt/Klima/Eksempler-pa-klima--og-energitiltak- 1/Avfallsbehandling/

(22)

14

2.1.4 Actors Involved in Household Waste Management

Each municipality is in charge of collecting the household waste of its residents by charging an annual fee (Norwegian Environment Agency 2013). Municipalities decide whether they want to take care of the waste themselves, if they want to outsource to private companies or if they want to handle the waste with inter- municipal efforts (Ibid.). In the Akershus area, for example, the municipalities of Frogn, Nesodden, Oppegård, Ski and Ås handle their waste through the inter- municipal company Follo Ren (FolloRen 2018). In the municipality of Asker, the municipality itself has a branch in charge of collecting and managing the waste, called Asker Avfall og Gjenvinning. The municipality of Oslo’s waste management branch is called Renovasjonsetaten.

In addition, as Avfall Norge describes (2014, own translation), the waste industry in Norway deals with about 11 million tonnes of waste produced per year, 22% of which comes from households (Folkehelseinstituttet 2018, own translation); it employs about 8,000 people for the collection, management and recycling of waste, and it reports 22 billion kroners in annual sales.

2.1.5 Waste Exports in Norway

Reasons for exporting waste from Norway to other countries, according to the Norwegian Environment Agency (2017, own translation) include lack of an available management system in the home country, lack of capacity and other economic reasons.

In Norway, there are about 100 authorized exporters of waste which send more than 60,000 shipments of waste per year to be managed in other countries (Norwegian Environment Agency 2017b, own translation). More than 40% of Norway’s exportable waste goes to Sweden (Ibid.). Waste exportations has increased not only in Norway but in other countries as well and, in 2016, Norway reported almost 2 million tonnes of waste for export (Ibid.). The graph below reports the countries Norway exports its waste to.

(23)

15

Figure 5: Waste Exports from Norway to Different Countries (Source: Norwegian Environment Agency) (Own translation: “Estland”: Estonia; “Belgia”: Belgium; “Frankrike”: France; “Litauen”:

Lithuania; “Spania”: Spain; “Nederland”: Netherlands; “Tyskland”: Germany; “Storbritannia”: Great Britain; “Danmark”: Denmark; “Sverige”: Sweden)⁶

This implies that Norway needs other countries to manage its waste, especially Sweden.

2.1.6 The Recycling Process

As mentioned previously, Oslo Renovasjonsetaten (REN) manages the waste of the city. It has a partnership with Energigjenvinningsetaten, or the Energy Recovery Agency. The municipality of Oslo owns three recycling stations located in Haraldrud, Klemetsrud and Romerike. Romerike handles biogas production while the other two handle household waste (Oslo Kommune 2019).

The municipality of Oslo offers households two types of coloured bags for their waste for free: blue for plastic and green for organic waste. All other waste goes in regular coloured bags. Households in Oslo also have containers available for paper and cardboard; glass and metal containers can be found in specific locations around

6 Norwegian Environment agency, 2019. «Eksport av avfall fra Norge», Retrieved from:

https://www.miljostatus.no/Tema/Avfall/Import-og-eksport-av-avfall

(24)

16

the neighborhoods. Once the waste has been collected from households by Oslo REN waste trucks, the Energy Recovery Agency takes over to sort and recycle the waste (Gaganis 2012, own translation). Both recycling stations in Haraldrud and Klemetsrud use an optic circuit system to sort out the waste. This means that the bags of waste enter the labyrinth of gliding bands, and then the optic sensors read the colours of the bags and picks them up from the band depending if they are blue or green (Ibid.). The bags go through the gliding bands many times to make sure they are sorted properly.

Figure 6: Recycling Station in Oslo (Source: Aftenposten)⁷

In Oslo, the waste then goes through different procedures depending on its category.

Mixed waste gets burned at an incineration facility the Oslo municipality owns; the heat released by combustion is used for heating and for producing electricity (Gaganis 2012, own translation). Organic waste from green bags is later used for biogas production, which supplies some buses in Oslo city as fuel, or as fertilizer in agricultural activities (Ibid.).

Plastic is collected through an alliance with the private organization Grønt Punkt, and the majority of it is later sent to a recycling facility in Bremen, Germany, where raw materials from the plastic is used to make new products throughout Europe; part of it

7 Aftenposten, 2015. “Recycling station in Oslo”, Retrieved from:

https://www.aftenposten.no/okonomi/i/KaVG/8-grafer-som-viser-hva-som-skjer-med-sopla-var

(25)

17 also goes to melting plants in Sweden (Gaganis 2012, own translation.). Plastic bottles or aluminum cans that enter the “pant” recycling system in Norway, whereby consumers return the bottles or cans for a refund, are collected by the Infinutum organization, and then re-made into the same products (Infinitum 2018). It is not only for environmental reasons, then, that Oslo recycles plastic, but also for economic ones: there are profits involved in the process.

The paper and cardboard the municipality of Oslo collects is sold to the Swedish company IL Recycling, who transports it to Sweden and recycles it into new products (Gaganis 2012, own translation). The last category, glass and metal, is collected and distributed afterwards by Syklus organization (part of Grønt Punkt). It is recycled at a plant in Fredrikstad, Norway and it is used as foam glass, insulation and other glass products both for Norway and other European countries (Ibid.). The process for recycling different materials, in sum, is complex and involves other countries and many companies.

2.2 A History of Waste in Norway

In order to understand current beliefs (attitudes, expectations, perceptions) about recycling, as well as environmental concerns and the movements that encourage environmental action, it is useful to have an overview of how Norwegians have dealt with waste in the past. Therefore, a summary of the history of waste in Norway will be presented in this section.

2.2.1 From Nattmenn (Night men) to Pant (Recycling Bottles)

The waste management system in Norway has gone through a process of evolution.

According to an article from a Norwegian recycling enterprise, called LOOP, which was based on Thomas Hylland Eriksen’s work, called Emballasje, and of Inge Torstenson’s two books, called Fra nattmann til renholdsverk and Ute av øye ute av sinn?, waste handling in Norway can be divided into three phases: a hygiene problem

(26)

18

(phase 1), a space-related problem (phase 2), and an environmental problem (phase 3) (LOOP 2009, own translation). A description of these three phases follows.

Thousands of years ago when nomads inhabited Norway, population numbers were meager, and nature took care of the waste produced by these nomads through the process of decomposition (LOOP 2009, own translation). Since the type of waste these nomads produced was mostly organic, there was no need for a system to collect it or manage it. During Medieval times, however, waste production increased as an effect of population growth (Ibid.). Sedentary lifestyles replaced nomadic ones, and there was a bigger need in the cities to handle waste than in the countryside. At this time, a law called the “city law” (bylov in Norwegian) was passed by Magnus Lagabøte; it held that the streets were to be cleaned before Christmas every year (Ibid.).

Figure 7: Illustration of Magnus Lagabøte passing a law book to a countryman (Source: Store Norske

Leksikon)8

During early modern times (1600s through the 1700s), population, city settlements and waste increased, yet there was still no proper waste handling system present

8 Store Norse Leksikon, 2019. “Magnus Lagabøte”, Retrieved from:

https://snl.no/Magnus_Lagab%C3%B8ters_landslov

(27)

19 (LOOP 2009, own translation). This is when the hygiene concerns of phase 1 began.

Since waste was literally thrown into the streets and ditches, and since farm animals were allowed to roam free around the city, it was unsurprising that rats and thereby health problems, such as cholera or the “Black Death”, flourished. The Miasmatic Theory, an obsolete medical explanation that held that illnesses and diseases were the effect of bad air (Garvanovic 2014), was a popular belief at that time This, in turn, made the removal of waste and the circulation of air and water important matters (Ibid.).

Afterwards, in 1595, Oslo did have some regulations that took measures against pollution: it was forbidden to take garbage out into the streets, bridges, or to throw them in the rivers; street-facing toilet rooms were also forbidden (LOOP 2009, own translation). It is important to highlight that during this period in Norway, the first organized recycling movement of paper and rags initiated, and also, street cleaning and refuse collection as a profession appeared. The people that performed sewage cleaning were called “nattmenn” in Norwegian (night men in English). Although this was considered a shameful job, those that performed the service were able to ask for a high price since there were few willing to do it (Ibid.). Nattmenn, one can say, were the first public waste management workers in Norway.

With the forthcoming of the Industrial Revolution of the 1800s, consumption along production of materials increased dramatically in Norway (LOOP 2009, own translation). Although there was an evident increase in the production of packaging, such as wooden boxes, metal cans, and paper, waste amounts did not increase dramatically overall. The trend was surprising: Norwegian society generally reused materials in an efficient way. They made quilts out of clothes patches, wooden furniture made out of wood from boxes, aluminum cans were turned into oil lamps, and even, some people delivered their old clothes and rags to factories in return for some pennies (Ibid.). It is interesting to note, then, that recycling in Norway is not a modern environmental activity, but rather, a practice that began many years ago out of need.

At this same time, there was less space to throw out one's’ garbage, especially since it was forbidden to throw it on marshes and wetlands. Waste deposits were confined

(28)

20

to certain areas such as landfills, coastlines and back gardens, the latter of which brought hygienic problems of its own (LOOP 2009, own translation). Cholera epidemics that arose from having garbage in the backyard turned preventive medicine and street cleaning/garbage collecting into important matters. At the end of the 1800s, street cleaning and garbage collecting became a municipal responsibility in Norway (Ibid), which still is.

There were also many alterations to the handling of waste during the 1900s. The concept of “pant” or money back for empty bottles was introduced in Norway in 1902, and in 1931, the Glomma industry, initiated the recycling of paper and cardboard (LOOP 2009, own translation). This means that the “pant alt” (recycle everything in English) initiative we see today from recycling company Grønt Punkt originated about 100 years ago.

Figure 8: Old Glomma Industry Truck (Source: Glommapapp)⁹

In addition, World Wars made garbage more valuable as people faced scarcity, and therefore, had to use materials as efficiently as possible. In other words, there was no space for waste. Amounts of waste at this time increased mainly due to population growth and, in Oslo, the solutions were either to throw the waste in an island, to empty the sewages in the ocean, or to use landfills (LOOP 2009, own translation).

Later on, landfills began to decrease in popularity because of the stench and flies that they caused, so two very attractive alternatives became incineration or using garbage

9 Glommapapp, 2016. “Glomma Historie”, Retrieved from: https://www.glommapapp.no/om- oss/historie

(29)

21 as filler material (Ibid.). The question at hand was where to deposit the leftover garbage? This reflected the space-related problem from phase 2 mentioned in the beginning.

During the 50s and 60s, the ongoing mentality, a by-product of massive consumption, was to “use-and-throw” (LOOP 2009, own translation). This does not mean, however, that recycling disappeared. This just means that purchasing power, consumers, individual packaging, and waste-related problems increased. Since waste ended up mostly in landfills but also in public landscapes, laws that forbade pollution in these areas appeared. Moreover, the 70s in Norway represented a growing period:

at the end of this decade 343 out of 445 municipalities enforced street cleaning and garbage collection (Ibid.). It was also during the 70s that the transition from waste being a space-related problem to an environmental problem began (Ibid.). Since landfills were seen as problematic because waste did not decompose as fast as expected, then incineration became attractive. Yet again, since burning garbage emits dangerous chemical gases and ashes, this was also seen as problematic (Ibid.).

Recycling again became an attractive practice. That’s how the transition to phase 3 began.

In the last years, there has been a substantial growth on Norwegian economy, and therefore, in consumption (LOOP 2009, own translation). The two go hand-in-hand.

It is not surprising then, that amounts of waste have also grown. All-in-all, there is a sharp difference from how Norwegians managed waste in nomadic times to how they manage it today. This section has laid out the detailed transition from hygiene, to space, to environmental concerns that have marked each period. Today, there is an ongoing awareness of the environment in Norway manifested in different forms:

documentaries by NRK, TV advertisements, “pant” (recycling bottles) machines in almost every supermarket store, NOAH campaigns, green political parties (Miljøpartiet), etc. The way waste has been perceived has certainly changed from past to present.

(30)

22

3 Literature Review

Considering that each country has its own socio-economical particularities, this literature review concerns mostly Norway. The chapter will browse through the work of Estensen (2011), Mikkelborg (2017), Refsgaard & Magnussen (2008) among others in the existing body of literature related to recycling. How this present study contributes to existing knowledge will be discussed at the end of the chapter.

A good example of a qualitative study that shows how economic incentives (EIs) play a role in recycling practices at a household level in Norway would be Estensen’s. EIs, in general, are implemented with the pay-per-bag system, in which unsorted waste bags are charged per weight and sorted bags (that go to recycling) are free of charge (Estensen 2011). The expected result would be, thus, that people choose to sort their waste in order to avoid paying per bag. Her research insists that a broader understanding about how EIs work is called for, since they may not have the intended or expected effect on people (Ibid.). According to her, an opposite effect may result from an EI; instead of securing environmentally friendly acts of recycling, some negative impacts may be triggered (Ibid.). Being too optimistic about EIs, then, can be somewhat naïve.

Estensen notes that EIs may have several negative impacts on recycling practices.

Firstly, they do not necessarily match the domain of morality people attach to recycling and may therefore weaken existing norms surrounding recycling activities.

Secondly, the fact that the EI is monetary in nature discredits the idea of recycling being for the environment, imposing a more utilitarian mindset on people. Lastly, the change from reasoning from a “We” perspective into an “I” might have occurred with some participants (Estensen 2011). Estensen concludes that the EIs are not an optimal instrument to use on the long term. With Estensen’s research, we can show negative effects potentially outweighing positive effects when implementing EIs at household levels in Norway.

(31)

23 Another study of recycling at household level, quantitative unlike Estensen’s, comes from Mikkelborg. His aim was to identify who is good or bad at recycling in the municipality of Oslo, to describe what characterizes these groups, and to seal knowledge gaps in order to increase recycling efforts (Mikkelborg 2017). Through his survey and data sets analysis, he found out that socio-demographic and socio- economic variables are descriptive indicators of recycling behaviour in Oslo. As Mikkelborg explains, “Gender, age, education level, income level, ethnicity and housing type are all descriptive of how good or bad recycling of household waste”

(2017, vii, Own translation). His data shows that “good” waste sorting activities, specifically of food waste and plastic packaging, are found among groups of people with the following socio-demographic characteristics: within the age group over 60, living in detached houses, an income level between 600,000-900,000 NOK per year, a higher proportion of persons with more than 5 years of higher education and of Norwegian ethnicity. “Bad” waste sorting habits were connected to groups of people with contrasting characteristics: living in block apartments, around the age group of 20-39, low proportion of Norwegian ethnicity and a lower income level of NOK 300,000-600,000 per year (2017, 48-49). Furthermore, regarding gender, his findings show that women in general sort more items than men (Ibid.).

Mikkelborg also presented possible explanations as to why these characteristics have repercussions on recycling behaviours. This thesis will present some of his explanations, not all. As stated in Mikkelborg: “The reason why households with higher income also sort better at source is due to higher social expectations from family or society in these social strata. High income often coincides with higher education and higher age” (2017, 38, Own translation). Furthermore, the reason as to why age groups of 20-39 are worse at sorting waste may be because it consists of families with children with a busy everyday life (Ibid.). These groups have less time and other priorities than to sort waste. Regarding ethnicity, groups with immigrants sort less waste than those of Norwegian ethnicity possibly due to language barriers, cultural differences and lack of information (Ibid.). In general, Mikkelborg’s findings are not coincidental, but rather, hold socio-economic explanations for people who exhibit low or high recycling rates.

(32)

24

Mikkelborg’s analysis may be simplistic, but it allows for an understanding of inequalities and diversities among the populations in Oslo that may hinder or facilitate recycling efforts.

Research by Magnussen and Refsgaard (2008) focuses on people’s attitudes and behaviour towards recycling in connection to different systems of waste management. At the time they wrote their article, there were more than 400 municipalities in Norway, and each has its own system for managing waste (organic, paper, glass, metals, etc.) that operated within a national framework; this implies that the systems differ in terms of organizations, institutions and technology (Magnussen and Refsgaard 2008). They insist that, although there is a lack of focus on them, institutions do influence how people see things, what choices they make, and how strongly they defend those choices.

According to the authors, people’s recycling behaviour varies depending both on the institutional context and available technologies (Magnussen and Refsgaard 2008).

Their study, then, focuses on institutions at two different levels: the level of waste management in different areas, and the level of preferences and values of households. Other scholars would argue that households as institutions would include more than preferences and values, but in Magnussen and Refsgaard work, they limit the scope of institutions to these two. In addition, they define attitude, within an economical approach, as an expression of people’s values and preferences, whereby preferences are socially-dependent (Ibid.). This study, in contrast, uses a psychological approach to define attitude. As a reminder, “Attitude” has already been defined in the Introduction as “the set of beliefs a person has about a behaviour’s likely consequences” (Ajzen, 1991), and it is a term connected to the TPB’s concept of “Attitude towards the behaviour”.

Magnussen and Refsgaard suggest two things: first, if people feel their efforts to recycle are appreciated in the process, then their attitudes may be affected in a positive way; second, if incentives match the cost or effort of recycling, then they can change behaviour (Ibid.). Attitudes are crucial elements for successful recycling.

(33)

25 Although their sample size was small and therefore they cannot generalize their conclusions, Magnussen and Refsgaard found the following five points: Sorting out food waste is norm-based; people direct their attitudes and recycling activities depending on the opportunities institutions provide to them and knowledge about the consequences; the available recycling system affects people’s attitudes since people demonstrate loyalty towards their system; people express themselves more altruistically in group settings, yet are more self-interested individually when asked about recycling. This suggests that when people are brought to dialogue in a common setting such as during an interview with the researcher, people act less individualistically, which is important for policy-making. People’s recycling behaviour can improve if information and the chosen institutional regime is adequate (2008). With research like Magnussen and Refsgaard’s, one is reminded about the important role institutions play. This research looks at this role from the perspective of the end-users: the people doing the sorting. Broadly, “institution”, as used for this research, refers to the waste management system in Oslo and the available infrastructure/technology it offers to its residents.

In a study conducted by Bruvoll and Nyborg, they examined whether efforts to recycle should be considered as “costs” in cost-benefit analyses (2002). Some people think they should be considered, while some do not since these efforts are voluntary.

Nonetheless, Bruvoll and Nyborg demonstrate that if government policies and efforts can increase recycling activities among people through appeals or similar means, then these means do impose a cost on households. They suggest that these costs should be acknowledged in cost-benefit analysis (Ibid.). In addition, they found that the majority of survey respondents who recycle would prefer to pay others for recycling their waste: they would pay about 700 NOK per tonne of waste (Ibid.).

This is a significant amount compared to the fees people have to pay for waste management.

Bruvoll and Nyborg collaborated with Statistics Norway in order to collect data from their survey of 1,162 respondents. Research like this seeks to document how willing are people are to pay for others to recycle their waste. This means, indirectly, that there are people that regard the activity burdensome, which is information that waste management authorities could take into account.

(34)

26

Further research includes Berglund’s (2006). He focused on household’s perceptions of recycling activities in Piteå, Sweden. While Berglund uses the common definition for “perception”, which is people’s judgement or awareness about something, this thesis uses Icek Ajzen’s definition: “the belief of how easy or difficult it is for a person to perform an activity” (1991). Although this research was not carried out in Norway, it is relevant because Scandinavian countries share many cultural characteristics. Given this, Berglund’s research is interesting to compare with similar research done in Norway.

The purpose of Berglund’s study was to analyze whether moral motives matter in the assessment of households’ sorting costs (2006). He utilized the Green Moral Index (GMI) to measure “moral motives” as a variable. His methodology included a mail survey to a random sample of 850 respondents. He concludes that moral motives significantly lower the cost associated with recycling sorting efforts (Ibid.). Research like Berglund’s help understand that people recycle not just because it is imposed to them by waste management authorities, but because there is a moral element of duty involved. Recycling may be perceived as a simple activity, yet it is complex, with different internal dynamics at play.

This list of reviewed studies is not exhaustive, yet their approaches indicate what kinds of studies have been already carried out in Norway related to recycling. It is a local literature review, meaning that studies in other countries (except for Sweden) are not taken into consideration, which constitutes a limitation to the present discussion. However, different countries have different cultural systems and infrastructure available connected to recycling which vary depending on the context—the way people sort waste in Norway is not the same in China. This does not imply that research carried in other geographic areas is not important.

Moreover, this thesis’ contribution to the existing body of literature is the examination of people’s attitudes, expectations and perceptions altogether using a social psychology theory to analyze the findings. Generally, economic theories have been used to examine recycling efforts, yet, to my knowledge, Icek Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behaviour has not yet been applied in the context of recycling in Oslo.

Surveys such as those from Mikkelborg’s and Berglund’s, that allow for

(35)

27 quantification of data and a representative large sample, are important to generalize findings, yet this research opted for a qualitative strategy in order to go “in depth”

with the subject rather than “in width”. This means that instead of accounting, for example, how many informants recycle, this research will try to find out why they recycle. It is a descriptive research that allows for the opinions, words, beliefs, motives from the interviewees, rather than numbers, to be examined. In that sense, this research is more similar to Estensen’s and Magnussen and Refsgaard’s: we have a smaller sample and a qualitative approach.

(36)

28

4 Methodology

This chapter presents the methodology, how the research was carried out and why certain choices were taken. It also includes an overview of the ethical considerations and limitations encountered during the research process.

4.1 Type of Theory

This study leans towards the use of deduction. The reason for choosing this type of theoretical stance is that, according to Bryman (2012, 6), it is based on a set of theoretical ideas which guide the collection and analysis of data. In this case, the theory guiding the research is the Theory of Planned Behaviour or TPB. The alternative choice, called inductive theory, suggests a more open-ended strategy in which theory emerges out of the data (Ibid.). With an inductive stance, theory is the outcome of research (Ibid.). Yet, theory did not arise from my data. Theory, instead, guided my research process and acted as a filter or lens to sort out the data. I nonetheless kept an open-mind in order to find other type of concepts, categories and patterns among my data that did not necessarily fit with the TPB.

I first engaged in revising the theoretical concepts from the TPB, out of which my research questions were formulated. The three concepts of the TPB were translated into my research questions: attitudes, expectations and perceptions. It should be noted, however, that an explicit hypothesis was not deduced from the initial theory.

The aim of the research regarding theory was not to test a hypothesis but to use the theory as a “guiding hand” during the research process.

4.2 Epistemological and Ontological Considerations

Epistemology is the study concerned with knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2005). Central epistemological questions can be the following: “What are

(37)

29 the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits?” (Ibid.). To this, Bryman adds “what type of knowledge is considered acceptable?” and “should the social world be studied with the same principles, procedures and ethos of the natural sciences?” (2012, 27). When it comes to adopting an epistemological standpoint, one can use positivism or interpretivism (see below). This is not to say that they are the only epistemological positions that exist—epistemology is more like a continuous spectrum in which other broad approaches, such as critical realism and phenomenology, appear. This study opted for the interpretive position. Following there’s a brief explanation of both positions followed by the reasoning behind the choice.

On one hand, positivism advocates the application of methods of the natural sciences to the social sciences (Bryman 2012, 28). Among its principles there’s:

“phenomenalism (which should not be confused with phenomenology), the belief that only phenomena and hence knowledge confirmed by the senses can be genuinely be considered knowledge; science must be value-free or objectivist; knowledge is arrived through the gathering of facts to provide the basis for laws”

(Ibid.). Positivism, in this way, is rigorous in its method for obtaining knowledge.

On the other hand, interpretivism, contrasts with positivism by criticizing the application of the scientific model into the social world (Bryman 2012, 28).

Interpretivists believe that the study of social sciences is different from the natural sciences (Ibid.) Positivism aims at explaining human behaviour and the forces that act upon it, whilst interpretivism aims at understanding empathically human behaviour (Ibid). Within an interpretivist position, social scientists aim at grasping the subjective meaning of social action (Ibid.). Among interpretivism’s intellectual influences there is Weber’s notion of Verstehen, the hermeneutic-phenomenological tradition, and symbolic interactionism (Ibid.). Phenomenology, one of its intellectual influences, demands “the social scientist to gain access to people’s thinking in order to interpret their actions and their social world from their point of view” (Ibid.) Symbolic interactionism, which is another influence that relies heavily on the work of George H. Mead, proposes that our notion of self emerges from an appreciation of how others see us (Ibid.) In sum, positivism is concerned with creating knowledge

(38)

30

based on facts, whilst interpretivism creating knowledge out of thoughts and meanings.

Considering that the aim of this research is to understand people’s belief systems, their thoughts towards recycling, their own perception of the waste management system, an interpretivist position is more suitable. As a researcher, I will try to understand rather than to explain (causes and so on) people’s different beliefs, and try to point out how the waste management system can be improved from their point of view. In that sense, this research claims allegiance with the intellectual tradition of phenomenology: I will be attempting to gain access to how people think in connection to the topic of recycling. Meanings, beliefs, suggestions, reasons and opinions will be given priority in this research to generate knowledge related to waste and recycling. These are all epistemological considerations.

Ontology is the study of what there is (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2004).

Central questions of this discipline are “What exists?”, “What is real?” and “How do we relate with this reality?” (Ibid.). To these, Bryman adds two questions: “Can and should social entities be considered objective and with a reality external to social actors?” and “Can and should they be considered social constructions built from the perspective of social actors?” (Bryman 2012, 32). As Bryman explains, the first question is related to objectivism and the second to constructivism, two different ontological positions.

Objectivism is “an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena and their meanings have an existence that is independent of social actors” (Bryman 2012, 32).

In this way, social actors have no role in shaping social phenomena; they just experience it as external facts. Constructivism, on the other hand, is “an ontological position that asserts that social phenomena are continually being accomplished by social actors; it implies that social phenomena are produced through social action and is in a constant state of revision” (Ibid.). Within this position, “the researcher presents a version of reality instead of something definitive” (Ibid.). As Potter observes, with a constructivist position, “The world is constituted, in one way or another, as people talk it, write it and argue it.” (cited in Bryman 2012, 34). People, then, are actors in a world they fashion.